Amicus Curiae Brief — Tamer Mahmoud, et al., Petitioners v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al.

No. 24-297

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

TAMER MAHMOUD, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

THOMAS W. TAYLOR, et al.,

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court

of A ppeals for the Fourth Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

WOMEN’S LIBERATION FRONT

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Elspeth B. Cypher, Board Secretary

Counsel of Record

Nancy K. Stade, Board Treasurer

Lauren A. Bone, Legal Director

Women’s Liberation Front

1802 Vernon Street NW #2036

Washington, DC 20009

(202) 507-9475

elspeth@womensliberationfront.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

131040

A

(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859

i

QUESTION PRESENTED

Does a public elementary school mandate that all

students be exposed to gender ideology constitute a state

establishment of religion in violation of the Establishment

Clause of the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution?

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

I.

Mandatory Instruction in Gender Ideology

is an Unconstitutional Establishment

of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A. The Materials Promote a System of

Belief Known as Gender Ideology . . . . . . . . 4

B. Gender Ideology is Religious in Nature . . . 8

C. Public School Programs of Mandatory

Student Exposure to Gender Ideology

Constitut e a n Est abl ishment of

Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

i.

Montgomery County’s Program

of Instruction in Gender Ideology

is Coercive and Constitutes an

Endorsement of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . 13

iii

Table of Contents

Page

ii. Montgomery County’s Program

Favors Religion over Secular

Belief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

II. Gender Ideology Harms Children, Women,

and LGB People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A. Gender Ideology Harms Children

Psychologically and Physically . . . . . . . . . . 20

B. Women and Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

C. Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexual People . . . 28

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

iv

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Edwards v. Aguilard,

482 U.S. 578 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18

Epperson v. Arkansas,

393 U.S. 97 (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Kennedy v. Bremerton,

597 U.S. 507 (2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13, 15

Lemon v. Kurtzman,

403 U.S. 602 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

L. W. by & through Williams v. Skrmetti,

83 F.4th 460 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed in part

sub nom. Doe v. Kentucky, 144 S. Ct. 389, 217

L. Ed. 2d 285 (2023), and cert. granted sub nom.

United States v. Skrmetti, 144 S. Ct. 2679, 219

L. Ed. 2d 1297 (2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 23

Mahmoud v. McKnight,

No. 23-1890 (4th Circuit, 2024), cert. granted,

Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 (January 17,

2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18

Other Authorities

Lucy Bannerman, It Feels Like Conversion Therapy

for Gay Children, The Times, August 4, 2019 . . . . . 28

v

Cited Authorities

Page

Sallie Baxendale, The impact of suppressing

puberty on neuropsychological function:

A review, A c ta Pa edi at r ica (Febr uar y

9, 2024), https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.17150 . . . . . . . . 22

BBC Newsnight report on the Tavistock GIDS (2020),

available at https://www.transgendertrend.

com/bbc-newsnight-tavistock-gids/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

h t t p s : / / w w w. t r a n s g e n d e r t r e n d . c o m /

affirmation-gay-conversion-therapy-childrenyoung-people/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

S o f i a B l o e m , P a t h o l o g i z i n g Id e n t i t i e s

Paralyzing Bodies, Justice for Iran, 2014 . . . . . . . . 28

Chris Bodenner, Is the Transgender Movement

a Spiritual One?, T he A tlantic , June 28,

2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/

a r c h i v e / 2 0 16 / 0 6 / i s - t h e - t r a n s g e n d e r movement-a spiritual-one/623668/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Madeleine Carlisle, Kid of the Year Finalist

Kai Shappley, 11, Takes on Lawmakers in

Her Fight for Trans Rights, TIME, January

12, 2022, https://time.com/6128490/kid-ofthe-year-kai-shappley-trans-activist/ . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of

“Gender Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental

Health, August 2020, https://www.segm.org/

ajp_correction_2020 (last visited March 7, 2025) . . . 23

vi

Cited Authorities

Page

Maurice Cranston, Ideology, E nc yclopedi a

Britannica (2025) https://www.britannica.com/

topic/ideology-society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

DHHS, Gender Identity Non-Discrimination

and Inclusion Policy for Employees and

Applicants (2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Evidence and Data on Trans Women’s Offending

Rates, Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor

Kathleen Stock and Professor Alice Sullivan,

https://committees.parliament.uk /written

evidence/18973/pdf/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Examining the Gender Specific Mental Health

Risks After Gender Affirming Surgery: A

National Database Study, Joshua E Lewis,

BS, Amani R Patterson, MBS, Maame A

Effirim, BS, Manav M Patel, BSA, Shawn

E Lim, BS, Victoria A Cuello, BS, Marc H

Phan, BS, Wei-Chen Lee, PhD Journal of

Sexual Medicine, qdaf026, February 23, 2025,

https://academic.oup.com/jsm/advance-articleabstract/doi/10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf026/8042063 . . . . 26

Executive Order 14168, D efen ding Wom en

from Gender Ideology Ex tremism

a nd R estoring B iologica l T ru th to the

Federal Government (January 20, 2025) . . . . . . . . . 3

vii

Cited Authorities

Page

FBI Crime Data Explorer at https://cde.ucr.

c j i s . g o v/ L AT E S T/ w e b a p p /#/ p a g e s /

explorer/crime/crime-trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

https://w w w.populationinstitute.org/news/

new-report-exposes-surprising-prevalence-offemicide-child-marriage-and-female-genitalmutilation-in-the-us/ (last visited March 7, 2025) . . 27

https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-ofgun-violence/female-homicide-victimizationby-males/?campaign=14820441548&gad_

s o u r c e =1 & g c l i d = C j w K C A i A r K W BhAzEiwAZhWsIIrDBMy0_U7xXSsHBOIK

9d6Z7vkxdMDuT2sETOHyj48oTCC4SVE

lWBoCC2kQAvD_BwE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 28

Azeen Ghorayshi, U.S. Study on Puberty Blockers

Goes Unpublished Because of Politics, Doctor

Says, New York Times, October 23, 2024,

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/

puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

GLAAD, Fact Sheet for Reporters—Term to

Avoid: “Gender Ideology” (December 3,

2 0 2 4), https: //gla ad.org /fact - sheet -for reporters-term-to-avoid-gender-ideology/ . . . . . . . . . . 8

viii

Cited Authorities

Page

Grandview Research, U.S. Sex Reassignment

Surgery Market Size, report ID Report

ID: GV R - 4 - 6 8 0 3 9 -2 5 8 - 0, http s: // w w w.

grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/

us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Do No Harm, Stop the Harm Database at

https://stoptheharmdatabase.com/about/ . . . . . . . . . 24

Ruth Hall et al., Impact of Social Transition

in Relation to Gender for Children and

A d o l e s c e n t s : A S y s t e m a t i c R e v i e w,

Archives Disease Childhood 1. 1 (2024) . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Ali Hamedani, The Gay People Pushed to Change

Their Gender, BBC News (2014) available at

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29832690 . . . . 28

Kevin Liptak, Biden says efforts to restrict

t r a n s g e n d e r r i gh t s ‘c l o s e t o s i nf u l ,’

CNN, March 13, 2023, https://w w w.cnn.

com/2023/03/13/politics/joe-biden-daily-show

trans-rights/index.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

List of Women Cancelled in the United States

O ver G ender Ideolog y, https: // womens

liberationfront.org/list-of-cancelled-women . . . . . . . 12

ix

Cited Authorities

Page

Lisa Littman, Parent reports of adolescents

and young adults perceived to show signs

of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria (2018)

PLOS ONE 13(8): e0202330. https://doi.org/

10.1371/journal.pone.0202330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Lisa Littman, Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria

in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Study

of Parental Reports, 13 PLoS One 1 (2018) . . . . . . . . 31

Littman L., Individuals Treated for Gender

Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical

Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned:

A Survey of 100 Detransitioners, Archives

of sexual behavior 50(8), 3353–3369 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Jane Martin, MD, “What is ‘Social Transition’

and Why is it Important?” Clinical Advisory

Network on Sex and Gender (can-sg.org) (2023) . . . . 21

John Money, Gender Role, Gender Identity, Core

Gender Identity: Usage A nd Definition Of

T er m s , J. A mer. Acad. Psychoanalysis,

l(4):397-403 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8

Ellen Pasternak, “No Debate” No Longer an Option,

The Critic Magazine (September 22, 2021) . . . . . . . 11

Janice Raymond, The Transsexual Empire:

The Making of the She-Male, Teachers

College Press (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

x

Cited Authorities

Page

“Religion.” M erriam-Webster.com Dictionary,

Merriam-Webster, https://w w w.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Respondent’s Brief in Opposition to Petition for

Certiorari, Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297

(2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Sapir, Leo Reckless and Irresponsible, https://

www.city-journal.org/article, 16. May 17, 2023 . . . . 23

h t t p s : // w w w. c i t y-j o u r n a l . o r g /a r t i c l e /

a c l u - a t t o r n e y c o n fe s s e s - t r a n s g e n d e r suicide-claim-is-a-myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

S e x , M a le , a nd Fema le , M i l l i e r -K e a n e

Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine,

Nursing, and A llied Health (7th ed. 2003),

https://medical dictionary.thefreedictionary.com . . . . 1

Jesse Singal, Netf lix’s Chappelle of hate,

T h e S p e c t a t o r , No ve m b e r 18 , 2 0 2 1,

ht tp s: //t he sp ec t at or.com /t opic /net f l i x s

chappelle-of-hate-netflix/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Soul Definition, Dictionary.com (based on

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2020) . . . . . 10

Rev. Valer ie Spencer and Wren Sanders,

R e v e r e n d Va l e r i e S p e n c e r S e e s t h e

Divinity of Transness, them, July 1, 2022 . . . . . . . . . 11

xi

Cited Authorities

Page

The LGB Alliance USA, https://lgbausa.org/,

and Gays Against Groomers, htps://w w w.

gaysagainstgroomers.com/ (organizations

fighting the sexualization, indoctrination,

and medicalization of children) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Meghan T wohey, Ch rsiti na Jewett , They

Paused Puber ty, b ut i s th ere a Cost?

N.Y. Times (November 14, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Wallien MS, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Psychosexual

outcome of gender- dysphor ic chi ldren,

J A m Acad Ch i ld Adolesc Psych iat r y,

(Dec 2008) 47(12):1413-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

F r a nce s W idow son , Th e Camp u s Tr an s

Diktat: No Debate, No Dissent—And No

Jokes, Quillette (September 6, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Amicus is the Women’s Liberation Front (“WoLF”),

a non-profit radical feminist organization dedicated to the

liberation of women and girls by abolishing gender and

sex discrimination. 2 As a radical feminist organization,

WoLF rejects gender identity beliefs because they are

founded on regressive sex stereotypes and undermine

women’s sex-based rights (including the rights of lesbian

and bisexual women who comprise nearly 40% of WoLF’s

membership). WoLF’s interest in this case stems from

its interest in protecting girls from ideologically-based

interference into their freedom of beliefs and from coerced

indoctrination into misogynistic ideologies. WoLF’s goals

are thwarted when the state abandons its responsibility

1. No counsel for any party authored any part of this brief,

and no party, their counsel, or anyone other than WoLF, has

made a monetary contribution intended to fund its preparation

or submission.

2. Amicus uses “sex” throughout to refer to the fundamental

distinction, found in most species of animals and plants, based on

the type of gametes each individual’s body is organized to produce.

In humans these fundamental sex differences divide people into

two sexual reproductive categories: Females are those whose

bodies are organized to support the production of ova and the

creation of offspring through sexual reproduction; Males are those

whose bodies are organized to support the production of sperm.

Sex in humans is determined at conception and remains fixed

throughout all life stages, regardless of individual life experiences

such as aging, illness, or infertility, and regardless of whether the

individual has a “difference (or disorder) of sexual development”

(DSD), sometimes incorrectly labeled “intersex.” See Sex, Male,

and Female, Millier-K eane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of

Medicine, Nursing, and A llied Health (7th ed. 2003), https://

medical dictionary.thefreedictionary.com (last visited March 7,

2025).

2

to maintain neutrality with respect to religious belief and

objective reality.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Both parties frame this matter as one concerning

the rights of religious parents to opt out of public-school

instruction in materials offensive to their religion, a right

that principally implicates the Free Exercise Clause of

the First Amendment. This framing deflects scrutiny

from the nature of the contested materials themselves,

materials that promote a mystical ideology known as

“gender ideology” that is regressive and hostile to women

and girls and neglects the rights of all students to be

free from coercive indoctrination into a system of beliefs

that is fundamentally religious in nature. Montgomery

County’s mandatory instruction in this ideology must

be struck down as an impermissible establishment of

religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the

First Amendment.

ARGUMENT

I.

Mandatory Instruction in Gender Ideology is an

Unconstitutional Establishment of Religion

At issue in this case is whether public elementary

schools may require children—both religious and

nonreligious—to be exposed to materials that promote

the concept of “gender identity,” 3 a concept Petitioners

3. The materials in question also address sexual orientation,

the straightforward concept that some people are attracted to

the opposite sex, some are attracted to the same sex, and some

are attracted to both. As will be discussed, “gender identity” is

3

(parents of children in Montgomery County public

schools), consider contrary to their religion. Many parents

of children in Montgomery County schools also objected to

these materials on non-religious grounds, including those

who belong to Kids First, a nonreligious organization

of parents and teachers supporting opt out rights, see

Mahmoud v. McKnight, No. 23-1890 at 7-9 and n.4 (4th

Circuit, 2024), cert. granted, Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24297 (January 17, 2025). This opposition is unsurprising:

the concept of “gender identity” is widely contested

and controversial.4 Radical feminists in particular have

long criticized the concept—and the beliefs, practices,

and activist demands associated with it—as inherently

misogynistic, opposed to reality, and harmful in its effects.

See, e.g., Janice Raymond, The Transsexual Empire: The

M aking of the She-M ale, Teachers College Press (1994)

(reissuance of 1979 Beacon Press edition).

an entirely different concept (and, because it denies the reality

of sex is in fact antithetical to the idea of sexual orientation).

This brief addresses only the “LGBTQ Inclusive” storybooks,

instructor guidelines, and supporting materials that promote

a belief in gender identity. See Mahmoud v. McKnight, No.

23-1890 at 7-9 (4th Circuit, 2024), cert. granted, Mahmoud v.

Taylor, No. 24-297 (January 17, 2025). This brief refers to these

storybooks, supportive materials, and guidelines collectively as

“the Materials.”

4. The concept is the purported justification for a host of

practices grounded in the idea that sex is fluid, including medical

interventions to change the sex traits of minors, male participation

in female sport, and the housing of violent male sex offenders in

women’s prisons. Popular opposition has led to state-level bans,

widespread litigation, and/or Executive Orders seeking to end

these practices. See, e.g., Executive Order 14168, Defending

Women from G ender I deology E x tremism a nd R estoring

Biological Truth to the Federal Government (January 20, 2025).

4

Ignoring the roiling public controversy around the

concept, Respondents defend their program of mandatory

instruction, claiming “a decades-old consensus that

parents who choose to send their children to public

school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise

their religion simply because their children are exposed

to curricular materials the parents find offensive.” This

assertion pits the prerogative of public-school officials

to teach a (presumably secular) curriculum against the

religious beliefs of parents; the entire force of the argument

lies in the unspoken equation between the materials in

question and secular or scientific instruction that States

have sought to suppress as inconsistent with religious

doctrine. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S.

578 (striking a state statute that prohibited instruction

in Darwin’s theory of evolution unless accompanied by

instruction in “creation science”). For the materials at

issue in this case, this analogy simply doesn’t hold. In fact,

these materials promote an ideology that is itself quasireligious in nature, making the mandatory exposure of

children to such materials an impermissible establishment

of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the

United States Constitution.

A.

The Materials Promote a System of Belief

Known as Gender Ideology.

The Respondents seek to characterize the Materials

as benign, describing them as “everyday tales of

characters who experience adventure, confront new

emotions, and struggle to make themselves heard”

and “archetypal stories that touch on the same themes

introduced to children in such classic books as Snow

White, Cinderella, and Peter Pan.” Respondent’s Brief

5

in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari at 5, Mahmoud

v. Taylor, No. 24-397 (2025) (“Respondent ’s Brief”). It

is true that like those fairytales, the Materials depict

scenarios that defy belief: they feature small children

who know themselves to be “transgender,” children whose

“gender identity” is so transient that it “changes like

the weather,” untethered from the sex binary, and sex

change made possible simply through love. Respondent ’s

Brief at 13-14. Respondents’ benign characterizations of

the Materials, however, overlook the overtly ideological

instructions that accompany these fantastical scenarios

and that the scenarios themselves are used to justify

policy prescriptions.

For example, the Materials include the instruction

that “there is no single way to be a boy, girl, or any other

gender,” Mahmoud at 9, suggesting that children can be

something other than boys and girls. They instruct public

school teachers:

If a student asks what it means to be transgender,

the teacher could explain, “When we’re born,

people make a guess about our gender and

label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts.

Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re

wrong. . . . Our body parts do not decide our

gender. Our gender comes from our inside[.]”

Id. These instructions further include:

guidance that directs teachers to emphasize

that “not everyone is a boy or girl” and that

“[s]ome people identify with both, sometimes

one more than the other and sometimes

6

neither,” so students “shouldn’t” “guess” but

instead solicit others’ “pronouns.” The guidance

directs teachers to frame disagreement with

these ideas as “hurtful,” and to “[d]isrupt the

either/or thinking” of students[.]

R espondent ’s B rief at 13 (citations to the record

omitted). Moreover, the Materials attach real-world policy

prescriptions to these made-up stories about identity. One

story encourages children to ponder “[w]hat pronouns fit

you?” while another depicts children with placards that

read “[choose] the bathroom that is comfy 4 u,” promoting

the use of pronouns and bathrooms associated with a

child’s “gender identity” rather than sex. Respondent ’s

Brief at 12-13.

These instructions and policy prescriptions treat the

fantastical scenarios in the Materials not like pumpkins

that turn into coaches or something out of Neverland, but

instead as part of a belief system or “a system of ideas that

aspires both to explain the world and to change it.” See

Maurice Cranston, Ideology, Encyclopedia Britannica

(2025) https://w w w.britannica.com /topic/ideologysociety (last visited March 7, 2025). Stated differently,

Montgomery County uses the Materials to promote a

particular system of ideas, that is, an ideology.

The Materials reveal three tenets central to this

ideology:

(1) people have an ethereal essence known as a

“gender identity”;

7

(2) this identity may be different from a person’s

sex (“Our body parts do not decide our gender.

Our gender comes from our inside”); and

(3) when a person’s gender identity and sex

conflict, gender identity rather than sex decides

that person’s access to single sex spaces,

pronouns, and more.

The corner piece of this ideology is the term “gender

identity.” This term is associated with John Money

the mid-20th century sexologist who is infamous for a

disastrous experiment in which he sought to impose a

female “identity” on a boy who later killed himself. Money

defined “gender identity” as “the private experience of a

gender role.” John Money, Gender Role, Gender Identity,

Core Gender Identity: Usage A nd Definition Of Terms,

J. Amer. Acad. Psychoanalysis, l(4):397-403 (1973). He

defined “gender role” as:

All those things that a person says or does to

disclose himself or herself as having the status

of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It

includes, but is not restricted to sexuality in the

sense of eroticism. Gender role is appraised in

relation to the following: general mannerisms,

deportment and demeanor; spontaneous topics

of talk in unprompted conversation and casual

comment; content of dreams, daydreams and

fantasies; replies to oblique inquiries and

projective tests; evidence of erotic practices

and, finally, the person’s own replies to direct

inquiry.

8

Id. As this quote reveals, “gender identity” is rooted in the

idea that sex stereotypes define a core part of a person’s

identity. The system of beliefs built around this regressive

idea—and reflected in mandatory curriculum contained

in the Materials—is known as “gender ideology.”5

B. Gender Ideology is Religious in Nature.

This ideology is not named in the Materials nor even

acknowledged as an ideology in Respondents’ brief. Denial

of any ideological bent is characteristic of gender ideology

adherents; its strongest proponents instead frame their

beliefs as grounded in indisputable fact and universally

observed truth.6 But the very concept of “gender identity”

5. The description of “gender ideology” that appears in E.O.

14168 aligns with the three tenets underlying the Materials. The

EO states that:

Gender ideology” replaces the biological category

of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed

gender identity [tenet 1], permitting the false claim

that males can identify as and thus become women

and vice versa [tenet 2], and requiring all institutions

of society to regard this false claim as true [tenet 3].

Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast

spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s

sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that

it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category

but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a

person to be born in the wrong sexed body.

6. For example, GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against

Defamation), an activist group that believes “everyone has a gender

identity,” issued a fact sheet advising reporters to avoid the term

“gender ideology.” See GLAAD, Fact Sheet for Reporters—Term

to Avoid: “Gender Ideology” (December 3, 2024), https://glaad.

org/fact-sheet-for-reporters-term-to-avoid-gender-ideology/

9

and its opposition to the observable fact of sex refutes

this framing. The concept and the ideology built on it are

instead fundamentally religious in nature.

There is no consistently applied legal definition of

“religion” and even lay definitions of the term vary widely.7

But a common understanding of that term includes the

idea of a set or attitudes, beliefs, and practices towards

things sacred. In contrast with secular attitudes, beliefs

and practices, religious attitudes, beliefs and practices

often cannot be fully explained by reference to observable

phenomena.

Indeed, while sex is an observable characteristic based

in reality, “gender identity” is wholly self-determined. See

Mahmoud at 9 (discussing the Materials, including the

claim that “[o]ur body parts do not decide our gender.

Our gender comes from our inside[.]”) The disconnect of

the metaphysical “gender identity” from physical sex is

(last visited March 7, 2025). The Fact Sheet states that “gender

identity is the accurate term to describe a person’s internal

sense of their own gender” and that “gender diverse people have

existed throughout history and cultures around the world.” The

Fact Sheet provides no support for these claims, yet states that

“Gender ideology” is “an inaccurate term” and that unverifiable

claims about gender identity do not constitute an ideology because

“‘ideology’ describes a political construct and opinion that can be

debated, argued about, and can change over time.”

7. Compare “Religion.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary,

Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

religion (last visited March 7, 2025) (defining religion as “a personal

set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and

practices” with (defining religion as “human beings”‘ relation to

that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine,

or worthy of especial reverence.”)

10

akin to the religious concept of a soul: “the principle of

life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a

distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held

to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual

part of humans as distinct from the physical part.” Soul

Definition, Dictionary.com (based on Random House

Unabridged Dictionary, 2020).

Prominent advocates for gender ideology from the

former President of the United States to the most wellknown trans-identified person in the world echo this

religious language. President Biden has referred to

opposition to gender ideology as “sinful”8 while Caitlyn

Jenner has claimed to have “the soul of a woman.” 9

Activist protesters were not content to simply protest

Dave Chappelle’s jokes about gender ideology but called

for the comic to “repent.”10

Leaders within the movement to promote gender

ideology openly describe the spiritual nature of their

belief. The publication them, which bills itself as “the

award-winning authority on what LGBTQI means today,”

published an interview on the “divinity of transness”

8. Kevin Liptak, Biden says efforts to restrict transgender

rights ‘close to sinful,’ CNN, March 13, 2023, https://www.cnn.

com/2023/03/13/politics/joe-biden-daily-show trans-rights/index.

html (last visited March 7, 2025).

9. Chris Bodenner, Is the Transgender Movement a Spiritual

One?, T he A tlantic , June 28, 2016, https://www.theatlantic.

com/national/archive/2016/06/is-the-transgender-movement-a

spiritual-one/623668/ (last visited March 7, 2025).

10. Jesse Singal, Netflix’s Chappelle of hate, The Spectator,

November 18, 2021, https://thespectator.com/topic/netf lixs

chappelle-of-hate-netflix/ (last visited March 7, 2025).

11

with Reverend Valerie Spencer, the founder of a spiritual

organization for “LGBTQI communities.” Spencer states:

[t]o be trans is one of the most spiritual things

one can ever be in and itself—even should you

never pray. We are the rare people that caught

a glimpse of God being itself as us, dancing

around as us. And when we begin to move

towards that vision, that is divine.11

T he most d istu rbi ng pa r t of gender ideolog y ’s

fundamentally religious nature is that its adherents use

its mystical associations to shield a highly idiosyncratic

and unscientific belief system from inquiry. Ideologues

have long treated gender ideology as a rigid orthodoxy

concerning which there can be “no debate”12 and any

dissenter as an apostate, making reasoned questioning

of its tenets impossible. Critics of the ideology may

be tarred as hateful, bigoted, or—in the case feminist

critics—trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs,

a term used to demean critics of the belief in gender

ideology.13 These critics have faced job loss, deplatforming,

11. Rev. Valerie Spencer and Wren Sanders, Reverend

Valerie Spencer Sees the Divinity of Transness, them, July 1, 2022.

12. See, e.g., Ellen Pasternak, “No Debate” No Longer an

Option, The Critic M agazine (September 22, 2021) (describing

the “taboo” around discussing beliefs critical of gender ideology

dogma, such as that sex is binary and fixed) ; Frances Widowson,

The Campus Trans Diktat: No Debate, No Dissent—And No

Jokes, Quillette (September 6, 2022) (college campus debates

about gender ideology dogma are commonly shut down as exercises

in “debating the trans community’s very existence”).

13. See https://terfisaslur.com/ (website documenting the

abuse, harassment and misogyny directed as feminists critical

of gender ideology).

12

censorship, and cancellation, punishments that have been

visited disproportionately on women.14 The attributes of

doctrinal rigidity and dogmatic intolerance of dissent are

on display here, where Montgomery County unaccountably

overrode its own internal guidelines, and—without

explanation—refused to allow anyone to opt-out from

instruction in the Materials, effectively mandating that

students be indoctrinated in gender ideology. Mahmoud,

No. 23-1890 at 10-11.

C.

Public School Programs of Mandatory Student

Exposure to Gender Ideology Constitute an

Establishment of Religion.

Montgomery County’s mandate that students submit

to instruction in gender ideology is an establishment

of religion. While the legal standard for finding an

impermissible establishment of religion has evolved, see

Kennedy v. Bremerton, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), No. 21-418,

the principle that “[t]he Court has been particularly

vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment

Clause in elementary and secondary schools” remains,

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 583–584 (1987) as

does the basic requirement that government must remain

neutral towards religion. Finding an impermissible

establishment of religion here is not overly complicated

by evolving Establishment Clause precedent because a

program of coercive indoctrination of elementary school

students that favors religious dogma over secular belief

violates the constitution under any analysis.

14. See List of Women Cancelled in the United States Over

Gender Ideology, https://womensliberationfront.org/list-ofcancelled-women (last visited March 7, 2025).

13

i.

Montgomer y Count y ’s P rog ra m of

Instruction in Gender Ideology is Coercive

and Constitutes an Endorsement of

Religion.

In Kennedy, the Court wrote that “the Establishment

Clause must be interpreted by “‘reference to historical

practices and understandings,’” including the principle

“that government may not, consistent with a historically

sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause,

‘make a religious observance compulsory.’” Kennedy, slip

op. at 23, 24-25 (internal citations omitted). The Court

then contrasted the facts of the case, in which a coach

engaged in prayer on a school football field following the

school team’s victory, with cases in which the Court found

religious observance in the setting of a public school to

be compulsory and impermissible. In finding that there

was no coercion, the Court relied on several facts starkly

different from the facts here. In particular, the court noted

that there was no evidence that parents had complained

of the on-field prayers, that students were not required to

participate in the prayer and that there was no evidence

that students felt pressured to participate. The Court also

noted the relative maturity of secondary school students,

which affected the analysis of whether they were likely

to feel coerced. Id. at 27-30. The facts of this case could

not be more different.

This case exists only because religious parents

objected to instruction involving the Materials. But the

opposition is not limited to those who object to gender

ideology as offensive to their religion. The secular group

Kids First, “‘an unincorporated association of parents and

teachers’ advocating ‘for the return of parental notice and

14

opt-out rights’ in Montgomery County Public Schools”

joined the complaint against the schools. Mahmoud,

n.4.15 Opposition was widespread, and included not only

parents, both religious and nonreligious, but teachers and

administrators as well:

Almost as soon as the Storybooks were first

adopted and integrated into Montgomery

County schools during the 2022–2023 academic

year, numerous teachers, administrators,

and parents began voicing concerns about

their efficacy and age appropriateness. Some

complaints were based on religious grounds,

but many were not. For instance, several

elementary school principals signed onto a

document that identified numerous instances

in the Storybooks of age-inappropriate content

such as words being used without definitions;

inherent problems w ith depicting young

children “falling in love” with another individual

regardless of orientation; and the overall

difficulty of some of the concepts presented.

Many parents, including the eventual plaintiffs

in this case, expressed concerns about having

their children exposed to content at odds with

their religious faith or that they deemed to

be inappropriate for their children’s age and

development. In short, the Storybooks’ rollout

was contentious and many caregivers sought—

for religious and secular reasons—to have their

children exempted from the Storybooks.

15. Kids First did not, however, join in the motion for

preliminary injunction, so the Fourth Circuit did not consider the

interests of nonreligious parents and students. Mahmoud at n.4.

15

Id. at 10. Though Montgomery County initially recognized

religious objections, allowing an opt out of instruction

in the Materials for religious reasons, the county did an

immediate about face, revoking the option of opting out and

effectively mandating that all students receive instruction

in mystical gender ideology dogma. In other words, the

program of instruction in gender ideology was on its face

coercive, in that no student could avoid instruction in

gender ideology. As the Court noted in Kennedy, coerced

participation in religious activity “was among the foremost

hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought

to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment.”

Kennedy at 25 and 29-30 (discussing favorably precedent

in which mandatory exposure to prayer in public schools

was found to violate the First Amendment.)

The decision in Kennedy also relied on the relative

maturity of secondary school students to reject that

coercion had occurred. Id. at 26. In this case, Montgomery

County mandated that students as young as kindergartners

be exposed to gender ideology. Mahmoud at n.1. The

Supreme Court has evaluated religious-based publicschool instruction that included elementary-aged students

according to a three-pronged test:

First, the legislature must have adopted the law

with a secular purpose. Second, the statute’s

principal or primary effect must be one that

neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third,

the statute must not result in an excessive

entanglement of government with religion.

Edwards v. Aguilard, 482 U.S. 578, 583 (citing to Lemon

v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 (1971)). Under this

16

test, known as “the Lemon Test,” religious instruction in

public school that fails any of the three prongs constitutes

an establishment of religion.

Concerning the first prong, courts look to whether

the religious instruction amounts to an endorsement

of religion. While the Supreme Court has moved away

from the Lemon Test, Edwards and its inquiry into

state endorsement of religion remains precedent when

considering the “particular concerns” that arise in public

school instruction in religious material, id. at 585. The

Court in Edwards emphasized the particular sensitivities

in considering religious instruction on public schools:

In this case, the Court must determine whether

the Establishment Clause was violated in the

special context of the public elementary and

secondary school system. States and local school

boards are generally afforded considerable

discretion in operating public schools. . . .

The Court has been particularly vigilant in

monitoring compliance with the Establishment

Clause in elementary and secondary schools.

Families entrust public schools with the

education of their children, but condition their

trust on the understanding that the classroom

will not purposely be used to advance religious

views that may conflict with the private beliefs

of the student and his or her family. Students in

such institutions are impressionable and their

attendance is involuntary. . . . The State exerts

great authority and coercive power through

mandatory attendance requirements, and

17

because of the students’ emulation of teachers

as role models and the children’s susceptibility

to peer pressure. Furthermore, “[t]he public

school is at once the symbol of our democracy

and the most pervasive means for promoting

our common destiny. In no activity of the State

is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than

in its schools. . . .”

Edwards at 584 (internal citations omitted). Given the

relative immaturity and impressionability of younger

public-school students, these concerns may be heightened

when the religious instruction occurs in elementary school

students. See Mahmoud at 10.

In Edwards, the Court invalidated a state law that

forbade the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution

in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in

the religious doctrine of creationism. The Court looked

to legislative history and practical effect of the law in

finding that it was enacted for the purpose of endorsing

religion. Edwards at 587-589. Although the Fourth Circuit

found that the record was not sufficiently developed to

determine the intent of Montgomery County in revoking

its opt-out option for religious parents, Mahmoud at

26-27, the relevant inquiry here for an Establishment

Clause analysis is the motivation behind the Materials

themselves. That motivation is plain. The instructional

guidelines within the Materials include the direction

to teachers to respond to students who question what

“transgender” is with dogmatic shibboleths, such as

that the sex-based categories of “boy” and “girl” are a

“guess” based on “body parts,” while true gender identity

“comes from the inside.” Mahmoud at 9. The Materials

18

instruct teachers to respond to the concerns of parents

and caregivers by affirming the reality of transgender

identities and “genders” other than boy and girl. Id. These

instructions overtly endorse the mystical tenets of gender

ideology.

ii.

Montgomery County’s Program Favors

Religion over Secular Belief.

In fact, the religious endorsement here is explicit and

heavy-handed in a way even the religious law invalidated

by Edwards was not. The law in question in Edwards

sought to present an appearance of neutrality between

religious and non-religious belief by allowing either the

teaching of evolution alongside religious doctrine or

not teaching either. Nonetheless, the Court found this

contrived attempt at neutrality to be a sham for several

reasons, one of which was that the law in question required

the use of instructional guidelines for “creation science,”

but not for evolution. Edwards. at 588.

In contrast to the law in Edwards, Montgomery

County offered no option of nonreligious, sex-based

instruction. Students who questioned the content in the

Materials would only receive further indoctrination in

gender ideology about the subjective and fluid nature of

gender identity. Moreover, as with the law in Edwards,

instructional guidelines were contemplated only to

amplify religious doctrine. There is no indication that

the Materials made provision for including alternative,

science-based instruction, such as that one’s sex is binary,

immutable, and observed at birth.

19

This preference for religious doctrine over secular

truth is plainly at odds with Court precedent. The Court

has held that “[t]here is and can be no doubt that the First

Amendment does not permit the State to require that

teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles

or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.” Epperson

v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968) (invalidating a state

law criminalizing the teaching of evolution). The favoring

of religion over non-religion violates the fundamental

principle under the Establishment Clause of government

neutrality towards religion. Under this principle:

[g]overnment in our democracy, state and

national, must be neutral in matters of religious

theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be

hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of noreligion, and it may not aid, foster, or promote

one religion or religious theory against another

or even against the militant opposite. The First

Amendment mandates governmental neutrality

between religion and religion, and between

religion and nonreligion.

Id. at 103. But the Montgomery County program not only

favors the religious doctrine of gender ideology over a

nonreligious, science-based understanding of sex. The

program also favors gender ideology over other faiths.

While parents of traditional religious faith were allowed

to opt their children out of standard sex education, only

when it came to the program of instruction in gender

ideology was instruction made mandatory with no opt

out available to religious students. See P etition for

Writ of Certiorari, Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-397

(2025). This differential treatment effectively created

20

a hierarchy of religion, with gender ideology trumping

Islam, Catholicism, and all other faiths. A public-school

program for elementary age students like the one devised

by Montgomery County, which favors gender ideology over

all over other religions and favors religion over nonreligion

by confining instruction to the teaching of gender ideology

in the fluid, subjective concept of gender, while omitting

instruction in the objective, science-based reality of sex

is, on its face neutral neither among religions nor between

religion and nonreligion. Such a program violates the

Establishment Clause under any analysis.

II. Gender Ideology Harms Children, Women, and LGB

People.

Gender Ideology has been promoted as “progressive,”

but it is, in fact, a regressive approach to sex stereotypes

and homosexuality. Indoctrinating children in the ideology

in school promotes social harms to vulnerable groups by

leading often troubled children to question their sex, by

subverting the basis for necessary sex segregation, and

by confounding the meaning of same sex attraction.

A.

Gender Ideology Harms Children Psychologically

and Physically.

The Materials discussed in section I A are designed

to teach children of tender years that when they were

born, they were assigned “boy” or “girl,” based on a

“guess” by a doctor who might have been wrong. The

Materials teach children, who are as young as 4 or 5 years

old, that “gender” comes from inside and that sometimes

their inside does not align with their outside. The gender

industry has never provided a consistent or clear definition

of gender or sex or transgender. Often gender and sex are

used interchangeably. This creates categorization and

21

cognitive confusion as the logic of the proposition cannot

be untangled without agreed to definitions. Attempts to

define “transgender” result in circular reasoning.

If the child is fortunate to be mature enough to think

more critically and be able to challenge the idea of gender

identity, the teachers are instructed to tell the child that

such questions are “hurtful.” This teaching also instructs

children that what is on the “outside” is not as important

as what is on the inside. In other words, gender identity

is more important than sex.

To teach such a destabilizing concept to young children

can erode their trust in their parents, their teachers, and

their doctors, as well as in themselves. The children have

been deceived and learn confusing and false beliefs that

children can be born in the wrong body, and that sex

change is possible. Children in pre-kindergarten through

elementary school, most of whom are in a period of growth

in which they believe in the magical and fantastic, this can

be devastating as they mature.

From there, harms may escalate to the practice of

“social transition” whereby educators and other children

“affirm” the new gender or sex. This can lock in a

child’s identification with the wrong sex. See e.g., Jane

Martin, MD, “What is ‘Social Transition’ and Why is

it Important?” Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and

Gender (can-sg.org) (2023) (citations omitted). Once a

wrong-sex identity is cemented by social transition, there

is evidence that children are likely to pursue irreversible

hormonal and surgical interventions such as puberty

blockers. See Ruth Hall et al., Impact of Social Transition

in Relation to Gender for Children and Adolescents: A

Systematic Review, Archives Disease Childhood 1. 1

(2024).

22

Puberty blockers halt the development of secondary

sexual characteristics like breasts, height, Adam’s apple,

and facial and pubic hair. They are not “reversible”

despite the gender industry’s claim that they are merely

a harmless, reversible, “pause.” See Meghan Twohey,

Chrsitina Jewett, They Paused Puberty, but is there a

Cost? N.Y. Times (November 14, 2022). But, if the child

is not socially transitioned, then between 80-90 percent

of children who express gender or sex confusion before

puberty grow out of the confusion after puberty. http://

www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-transwhen-they-grow_99.html) (last visited March 7, 2025)

Puberty blockers have serious physical consequences for

growing children. Puberty blockers may interfere with

normal cognitive development. See Sallie Baxendale, The

impact of suppressing puberty on neuropsychological

function: A review, Acta Paediatrica (February 9, 2024),

https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.17150 (last visited March 7, 2025).

Serious medical consequences can result from the

use of puberty blockers to prevent puberty. Both sexes

may experience “diminished bone density, infertility,

and sexual dysfunction.” L. W. by & through Williams

v. Skrmetti, 83 F.4th 460, 489 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed

in part sub nom. Doe v. Kentucky, 144 S. Ct. 389, 217

L. Ed. 2d 285 (2023), and cert. granted sub nom. United

States v. Skrmetti, 144 S. Ct. 2679, 219 L. Ed. 2d 1297 (2024).

O t he r hor mon a l i nt e r ve nt ion s i n c lud e t he

administration of cross-sex hormones to promote secondary

sex traits associated with the opposite sex. Females taking

sufficient levels of testosterone to induce changes in their

body increases the risk of erythrocytosis, myocardial

infarction, liver dysfunction, coronary artery disease,

cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, and breast and

uterine cancer. Males taking sufficient levels of estrogen

23

to induce changes may experience sexual dysfunction and

increased the risk of hypertriglyceridemia. Id. at 489.

For many years gender advocates have maintained that

if children are not “affirmed” and permitted to transition,

they will commit suicide. Parents who ask questions about

alternatives, such as waiting, or exploratory therapy, or if

they show any resistance are asked “Would you rather have a

dead girl or a live boy?” This is perhaps the most pernicious

manner of eliminating challenges from parents, other family

members, teachers, coaches, other medical professionals,

journalists, and, even judges. Gender advocates and the

gender industry have persisted with this claim, despite

the fact that it is completely false and has always been

completely false. The data relied on to support this was

from studies that have been discredited. See https:www.

transgendertrend.com/the-suicide-myth/ (last visited

March 7, 2025); Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of

“Gender Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental Health,

August 2020, https://www.segm.org/ajp_correction_2020

(last visited March 7, 2025); Sapir, Leo Reckless and

Irresponsible, https://www.city-journal.org/article, 16.

May 17, 2023. A more relevant and recent study shows the

opposite is true. Children who transition are more likely

to commit suicide. (Source). On December 4, 2025, Chase

Strangio admitted in the United States Supreme Court

that the statistics did not support that position.16 Sapir, Leo,

16. Excerpt from transcript of oral argument in U.S. v.

Skrmetti, United States Supreme Court, December 4, 2024, Page

88-89.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I—I don’t regard the

Cass review as—necessarily as—as the Bible or as

something that’s, you know, true in every respect,

but, on page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There

is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments

reduce suicide.

24

December 5, 2024 https://www.city-journal.org/article/acluattorneyconfesses-transgender-suicide-claim-is-a-myth (last

visited March 7, 2025). Thus, we have all been led on our own

“gender journey” right along with the children who hear that

if they do not transition, they too will commit suicide.

This is not a grass roots civil rights movement, but an

AstroTurfed project that has been successful, generating

approximately in the United States 1.2 billion dollars in 2022

for surgical procedures alone. Grandview Research, U.S.

Sex Reassignment Surgery Market Size, report ID Report

ID: GVR-4-68039-258-0, https://www.grandviewresearch.

com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market

(last visited March 7, 2025). Activists often minimize the

prevalence of pediatric sex trait modification procedures

and deny that such surgeries are performed on minors

at all, but data from a recent analysis of insurance claims

shows that in the United States between 2019 and 2023:

13,994 minors underwent sex trait modification treatments,

5,747 minors had sex trait modification surgeries; 8,579

minors received hormones and puberty blockers; and

62,682 sex change prescriptions were written for minors.

See Do No Harm, Stop the Harm Database at https://

stoptheharmdatabase.com/about/ (last visited March 7,

2025). This database does not include data from Kaiser

Permanente or the Department of Veterans Affairs. “Gender

affirming care” is a medical scandal. See amicus brief of

the State of Alabama in U.S. v. Skrmetti, 23-477, page 1,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/

MR. STRANGIO: What I think that is referring to

is there is no evidence in some—in the studies that

this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the

reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and

admittedly, is rare and we’re talking about a very

small population of individuals with studies that don’t

necessarily have completed suicides within them.

25

328275/20241015131826340_2024.10.15%20-%20Ala.%20

Amicus%20Br.%20iso%20TN%20FINAL.pdf (last visited

March 7, 2025).

Almost all children who receive “gender affirming

care” have one or more co-morbidities such as depression,

anxiety, autism, self-harming behaviors, and suicidal

ideation. See, e.g., Lisa Littman, Parent reports of

adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs

of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria (2018) PLOS ONE

13(8): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/

journal.pone.0214157 (last visited March 7, 2025). Many

have a history of trauma and abuse. Id. Nevertheless,

where there should be exploratory therapy to identify

the source of a child’s difficulty they are immediately

“affirmed” and set on a path of medical interventions

contrary to their biology. The evidence relied on by gender

advocates is extremely weak. The World Professional

Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) hired Johns

Hopkins University to review the evidence supporting

the permanent alteration of children’s bodies to address

gender confusion, the team “found little to no evidence

about children and adolescents, . . . ” WPATH resisted

the publication of the review. See exhibit 175, pages

20-25 (pages not redacted) at https://www.alabamaag.

gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SJ.DX173-560 -23HHS-5-REDACTED.pdf (last visited March 7, 2025);

Azeen Ghorayshi, U.S. Study on Puberty Blockers Goes

Unpublished Because of Politics, Doctor Says, New

York Times, October 23, 2024, https://www.nytimes.

com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.

html (last visited March 7, 2025).

26

None of the interventions, including social transition,

are benign. The medical inter ventions, including

puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, genital and other

surgeries all carry grave risks and future complications.

A recent study of over 100,000 patients who identified

as transgender “were at significantly higher risk for

depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance

use disorder than those who did not have surgery. See

Examining the Gender Specific Mental Health Risks After

Gender Affirming Surgery: A National Database Study,

Joshua E Lewis, BS, Amani R Patterson, MBS, Maame

A Effirim, BS, Manav M Patel, BSA, Shawn E Lim, BS,

Victoria A Cuello, BS, Marc H Phan, BS, Wei-Chen Lee,

PhD Journal of Sexual Medicine, qdaf026, February

23, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/jsm/advance-articleabstract/doi/10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf026/8042063 (last visited

March 7, 2025). In addition, the John Hopkins review found

that adolescents who identified as transgender and had

surgery suffered more depression, anxiety, suicidality and

distress or dysphoria than trans-identified adolescents

who did not have surgery. See exhibit 175, page 25 (pages

not redacted) at https://www.alabamaag.gov/wp-content/

uploads/2024/10/SJ.DX173-560-23-HHS-5-REDACTED.

pdf (last visited March 7, 2025). Gender ideology should

not be taught to children in school, especially without

notice to the parents and the ability to “opt-out.”

B. Women and Girls

When government decision makers ignore the actual

science and accept theoretical biology (perhaps because

they too have heard the suicide story) necessary and

relevant sex distinctions between men and women are

denied and women and girls are disproportionately

harmed by the resulting unworkable public policy.

27

In contrast to sex, gender is a classification based on

the social construction (and maintenance) of cultural

distinctions between males and females.” Institute of

Medicine Committee on Assessing Interactions Among

Social, Behavioral, and Genetic Factors in Health,

(Hernandez, LM and Blazer, DG, editors) Genes, Behavior,

and the Social Environment: Moving Beyond the Nature/

Nurture Debate, National Academies Press, 2006. The

United States Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS) agrees, defining “gender” as “a social construct of

identities, norms, behaviors, and roles that vary between

societies and over time.” DHHS, Gender Identity NonDiscrimination and Inclusion Policy for Employees and

Applicants at 2 (2023).

Women and girls suffer from the loss of single-sex

spaces where, because sex change is impossible and men

mimicking women may enter also, women and girls lose

their ability to police the space. This increases the risk

to women and girls as they also become trained to ignore

their instincts. Women and girls are vulnerable to male

violence. Men are far more likely to commit violent offenses

including homicide and rape than women, and rape is

overwhelmingly committed by men against. See FBI

Crime Data Explorer at https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/

webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend (last visited

March 7, 2025) (official U.S. crime statistics over a fiveyear period). Male violence and femicide is a threat and

reality for women. https://www.populationinstitute.org/

news/new-report-exposes-surprising-prevalence-offemicide-child-marriage-and-female-genital-mutilationin-the-us/ (last visited March 7, 2025); https://vpc.org/

revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/female-homicidevictimization-by-males/?campaign=14820441548&gad_

source=1&gclid=CjwKCA i A rKW-BhA zEiwA ZhWs

28

IIrDBMy0_U7xXSsHBOIK9d6Z7vkxdMDuT2sETOH

yj48oTCC4SVElWBoCC2kQAvD_BwE (last visited

March 7, 2025). Male pattern criminality is not changed

by transitioning. Evidence and Data on Trans Women’s

Offending Rates, Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor

Kathleen Stock and Professor Alice Sullivan, https://

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

(last visited March 7, 2025).

Furthermore, the deprivation of single sex spaces

favors men who mimic female sex stereotypes over women,

effectively establishing a preference by the government

for conformity to sex stereotypes. If males can identify

into the sex class of women, then there is no such class

and women are once again, invisible.17

C.

Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexual People.

Lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people are harmed

as they are more likely to be given sex trait modifications

as children. Lucy Bannerman, It Feels Like Conversion

Therapy for Gay Children, The Times, August 4, 2019.

Though billed as progressive, the “born in the wrong

body” narrative is homophobic and has been notably

embraced by countries such as Pakistan and Iran (where

homosexuality is punished by death, but “sex change”

is government subsidized). See, e.g., Ali Hamedani,

The Gay People Pushed to Change Their Gender, BBC

Ne w s (2 014) ava i l able at ht t p s: // w w w.bb c .com /

news/magazine-29832690 (last visited March 7, 2025);

Sofia Bloem, Pathologizing Identities Paralyzing Bodies,

17. When males are permitted to assume a female identity,

crime statistics become skewed, law enforcement does not have

accurate descriptive identification when necessary, and some

perpetrators are able to hide their crimes and evade accountability.

29

Justice for Iran, 2014. This attitude may be more common

in the west than many realize—whistleblowers from a

child “gender” clinic in the UK have stated that “genderaffirming” care is sometimes sought by families who

prefer a “transgender” child over a gay child. See BBC

Newsnight report on the Tavistock GIDS (2020), available

at https://www.transgendertrend.com/bbc-newsnighttavistock-gids/ (last visited March 7, 2025). “The evidence

shows that the majority of adolescents and young people

now identifying as transgender are lesbian, gay or

bisexual, and that homophobic bullying is indicated as

a possible reason. This is cause for serious concern that

‘affirmation’ is a way of ‘transing away the gay.’” https://

www.transgendertrend.com/affirmation-gay-conversiontherapy-children-young-people/ (last visited March 7, 2025)

This is true in the United States as well. Kimberly

Shappley, a mother, admits publicly to beating and abusing

her son, Kai, when he was just a toddler, for demonstrating

an interest in “feminine” things. She stated in an

interview, “I remember thinking even before Kai was 3,

this kid might be gay. And, I thought, that cannot happen,

would not happen. We started praying fervently. Prayers

turned to googling conversion therapy, and how can we

implement these techniques at home to make Kai not be

like this.” (quote from imgur post: https://imgur.com/a/

kai-shappley-BqM7g1O) (last visited March 7, 2025).

Kai’s experience is heralded as a success story for “trans

children.” Madeleine Carlisle, Kid of the Year Finalist

Kai Shappley, 11, Takes on Lawmakers in Her Fight for

Trans Rights, TIME, January 12, 2022, https://time.

com/6128490/kid-of-the-year-kai-shappley-trans-activist/

(last visited March 7, 2025). It is clear that “transitioning”

children who are gender nonconforming is, in many cases,

constructing a medicalized heterosexuality”—and is the

30

express aim of some children who choose this path or have

it chosen for them.

These drugs and procedures serve no medical purpose

but rather are undertaken in attempt to resemble the

opposite sex, ostensibly to treat clinically significant

distress that a person experiences as a result of not

appearing “masculine” or “feminine” enough. These

drugs and procedures can lead to sterilization and adult

sexual dysfunction; the children who “consent” to them are

simply too young to meaningfully consent to permanent

impairment of fertility or of adult sexual experiences

that they cannot yet comprehend. Given the high rate of

desistance from childhood gender dysphoria, as well as

the very high number of dysphoric youth who are samesex attracted, serious caution should be urged. Littman

L., Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with

Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently

Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners, Archives

of sexual behavior 50(8), 3353–3369; Wallien MS, CohenKettenis PT, Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric

children, J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, (Dec 2008)

47(12):1413-23.

New organizations have been created to preserve

the rights that Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals have

fought for, to stop the medical treatment of children for

gender confusion, and to fight for sex-based rights. See

The LGB Alliance USA, https://lgbausa.org/, and Gays

Against Groomers, htps://www.gaysagainstgroomers.

com/ (last visited March 7, 2025) (organizations fighting

the sexualization, indoctrination, and medicalization of

children).

31

Even people who identify as transgender have joined

with lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals to reform gender

medicine for children. See The LGBT Courage Coalition

https://www.lgbtcourage.org/ (last visited March 7, 2025).

These groups recognize that the children and young

adults being medicalized for not conforming to sex-based

stereotypes are disproportionately same-sex attracted

(LGB). See, e.g. Lisa Littman, Rapid-Onset Gender

Dysphoria in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Study of

Parental Reports, 13 PLoS One 1 (2018).

CONCLUSION

The decision below should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

Elspeth B. Cypher, Board Secretary

Counsel of Record

Nancy K. Stade, Board Treasurer

Lauren A. Bone, Legal Director

Women’s Liberation Front

1802 Vernon Street NW #2036

Washington, DC 20009

(202) 507-9475

elspeth@womensliberationfront.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae